Eric Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) inadvertently gave the game away in his opening speech when he used phrases such as "direction of travel" and "prioritising climate change" in the context of local authorities' role, as envisaged in his new clause 1 and the Minister's new clause 4. It has already become apparent in our brief and so far friendly exchange—an opener to what will be a fascinating debate through today, and probably subsequent Fridays—that the risk is that this well-meaning Bill is neither more nor less than a gesture. I have a real problem with the concept that we in this House need endlessly to legislate to show what good people we are, what good intentions we have and how much we agree with this or that outside interest group; indeed, I find that rather offensive. Our job should be passing necessary and practical legislation that adds value to the statute book and the body politic, not endlessly loading the statute book with good thoughts and clever ideas. I am afraid that this Bill comes into the latter category.
	We are already struggling to see—typically, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) elicited this from the Minister—just what value the Bill adds. It has already been claimed that we need not worry—there will be no new burdens on local authorities as a result of these new clauses. However, the very first sentence of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, says:
	"Every local authority shall, after having regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State, within twelve months . . . consider how the measures . . . in this section can assist the authority".
	That immediately imposes a new burden on local authorities, and if it does not it is not worth doing. So we begin to see, even in that first sentence, the potential for conflict. It is claimed that this is a relatively innocuous thing that everyone is doing anyway; indeed, the Minister gave examples of excellent local authorities that are already doing most of what is in the new clauses. So if we are not careful, we will either simply repeat what is already being done, or add new burdens to local authorities. It is incumbent on us to face such issues head on. If we are indeed asking our benighted local authorities to do yet more—albeit in the best of causes and with the best of motivations—we should know about it and acknowledge it. We need an absolutely open and honest answer to that question before we can sign up to new clause 1.
	New clause 1 goes on to specify the various valuable developments that it would doubtless bring about. In discussing later my amendment (a) to new clause 4, I hope to initiate a debate on the concept of fuel poverty, which this House has never had in a proper sense. As I have said many times in this House, I have serious doubts about that concept. In many ways, it is misleading nonsense and I want to explain why. Fuel poverty is a concept that everybody signs up to, saying—as the Minister said earlier—that is outrageous, disgraceful and awful and that we must deal with it. When I have finished discussing local authorities, I want to explore in a little more detail the claims made about fuel poverty, as opposed to poverty in general or any other specific poverty, and how we can best deal with it—an issue raised earlier by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith).
	For the moment, however, I want to concentrate on new clause 4, with which there are some problems. At the outset, it lays a new burden on the Secretary of State. It should not be imagined, as it often is when we are faced with such Bills, that we can ask more and more of Government Departments at zero cost. The Chancellor is boasting—is he not?—that we will see increased productivity and slimmer and more effective Government Departments, which will result in a saving to the taxpayer. At the same time, however, Bills such as this repeatedly come before the House that make further demands on Departments. These demands cannot be met at no cost, and if they can they are probably not worth meeting, or will not be met very well. At the outset of new clause 4, there is again this apparent conflict between the rival claims being made for the Bill. It either does something new, exciting and beneficial—if so, it will probably involve substantial additional cost—or it is simply a gesture to make us all feel better, in which case, it may well not.
	New clause 4 contains another of these mandatory requirements. Subsection (2) states:
	"Every local authority must, in exercising any of their functions, have regard to the most recently published energy measures report".
	So it is surely unavoidable that at least one official in each local authority will have to spend time having regard to such a report. Someone who could have been looking after old people, young people or people with disabilities will instead have to beaver away studying an energy measures report, doubtless having to reach a conclusion on what positive contribution their local authority can make to all the good things in the Bill.

Eric Forth: Funnily enough, that reassures me, because it shows that our Front Benchers are not totally in bed with the Government on this issue. That discrepancy reassures me that there is at least the slightest smidgen of difference between our Front Benchers and the Government, which makes me—as a traditionalist—feel rather comfortable. However, I shall not hold my breath waiting for much more evidence of that.
	I shall now conclude my preliminary observations on new clause 4, turn to my amendment (a) and initiate what I hope will be a vigorous and extensive debate on the concept of fuel poverty, which has bothered me for some time. It encompasses a wide variety of different concepts, which have not yet been addressed or dealt with. There is the concept of poverty itself, which well known but not yet fully explored in terms of whether we mean absolute or relative poverty. There is also the role that fuel, as opposed to other essentials, plays in the household budget. There are historic comparisons to be made, with fuel prices past and present, and lifestyle choices. One of the issues that we must explore is whether the frequently made claims that people are fuel poor have anything to do with their lifestyles and their personal priorities.
	One of the reasons why I have sought to initiate a debate on fuel poverty, by seeking to remove the reference to it from the new clause and throughout the Bill, is that I am not sure that it has any place in a Bill on so-called climate change, emissions, microgeneration and all that. Fuel poverty is a completely different subject and should be covered by a different policy direction. In any case, I remain to be convinced that fuel poverty is a legitimate concept.
	When one looks at definitions of poverty, one comes across "want of necessities", "indispensable things", "wanting means of subsistence" and "minimum resources to sustain life". Those definitions are all unexceptional, and nobody would disagree with them. But when I began to think about what fits into those descriptions, I made a little list: accommodation, food, clothing, heating, perhaps transport—and then I got to alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and the like. I then began to wonder in what order one should list them in terms of the minimum resources to sustain life, subsistence or want of necessities. That immediately brings us to the time-honoured debate, which I do not think we have ever resolved—perhaps because we do not really want to confront it—about whether poverty is relative or absolute. In a very wealthy society, which we pride ourselves on being, if one defines poverty in relative terms, one gets some rather peculiar outcomes. People who enjoy things that could hardly be called necessities are suddenly regarded as being in some way poor. On the other hand, if one looks at poverty as an absolute, which would be my preference, it starts to take on a different context.
	If we are really talking about necessities—the minimum resources to sustain life—I originally put accommodation first, but then I thought that food should be first, because if people do not eat they do not survive, and we know that there are people who choose—many, but not all choose—to live on the streets. They can survive almost indefinitely without conventional accommodation, but they need food and clothing. The point that I am working towards is that fuel does not feature very highly in what people need to survive and maintain themselves. So why do we not talk about food poverty or clothing poverty? Why do we not talk about poverty in other essential aspects of life? Why are we obsessed with the concept of fuel poverty, as opposed to poverty in other aspects of life?

Eric Forth: Of course there are, as there are for people with very young children. Of course there are groups in society that have different priorities and different needs, but that does not mean to say that we should bring out a blanket definition of something such as fuel poverty and then apply it indiscriminately across the board. Later, I shall come to regional considerations. Will we say that someone who has the joy of living on the Isle of Wight, for example—the southernmost part of our wonderful country—will have the same needs as someone living in the extreme north of Scotland? Of course they will not. Therefore I believe that we must start taking account of climatic conditions, whether they are affected by climate change or not, the Gulf Stream, prevailing winds or whatever it may be. Catch-all definitions such fuel poverty, which we are dealing with here, will not do. We must have a better understanding of what people need, why they need it and what we should do to alleviate shortcomings.
	Now I shall go back to the point that I was making—asking why we do not talk about food poverty, clothing poverty or people's inability to pay for other aspects of their lives, and how essential we think those things are compared to fuel or heating. My hon. Friends have said that they think there is a serious problem of elderly people being unable to warm their homes. But what about elderly people being unable to eat or to clothe themselves properly?

Christopher Chope: I suppose that the subsection does so in sense—my hon. Friend is right—but the trouble is that the two possibilities that he describes are contradictory. If the costs of microgeneration are uneconomic and local authorities are required to increase the amount of microgeneration even though it is uneconomic, that will push up the cost of energy, thereby exacerbating the problem of fuel poverty.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that he is as enthusiastic a supporter of the principles of localism as I am. We do not believe in just mouthing platitudes about localism; we would like it to be implemented in practice.
	On that final point, I find it extraordinary that the GLA will be excluded from the provisions when the local parish council down the road from where I live in my constituency be will required to deal with this new burden—if indeed it is a burden, and if it is not a burden, it is a complete waste of everybody's time.
	I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) thinks that he has won a great victory, because I am all in favour of the Opposition winning victories. If he thinks that new clause 4 is a great victory, far be it from me to disabuse him of that idea. From my perspective, new clause 4 could potentially have a very intrusive effect on local authority freedom. It offends against the principles of deregulation, which I thought that the Government signed up to.

James Duddridge: I will try to make my comments brief. I had hoped to speak in favour of the amendments, but, having listened to many of the points that have been made, I recognise that new clause 4 is fundamentally flawed. I had hoped to speak in support of it because I believe passionately that climate change is the biggest problem that we face. However, very little evidence has been brought forward in this debate on how to prioritise and allocate resources efficiently in relation to the problem. New clause 4 takes the direction of environmental policies away from local government to central Government. I do not support that move, because localism will create much greater diversity. It concerns me greatly that the Secretary of State will have greater powers, particularly under subsection (3) of new clause 4, which appears to give him powers to compel local authorities to have regard to any report that he deems relevant. That is turning things on their head. We need diversity in local government.
	Unlike other hon. Members, I do not believe that fuel poverty has a place in the Bill. It is a useful term and engages with real problems. However, rather than highlighting an issue, it dilutes the more general issue of poverty overall and negates some other forms of poverty such as water poverty. The Government are fixated on fuel poverty and water poverty, rather than food poverty—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) raised that point. They are still deeply uncomfortable with energy and water requirements being provided by the private sector in their entirety. It is less defensible to attack the position on food security and food poverty, requirements that have been dealt with by the private sector efficiently for a much greater time.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) believes that new clause 4(5) is a good provision and provides a much greater case for approving the Bill. I am afraid that I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that it does not compel the Secretary of State to produce anything of substance. If an energy measures report was going to be useful, it would have been much better to see a detail compelling the Secretary of State to produce specific information in that report.
	I mentioned the issue of unitary councils in relation to new clause 4(6). I would appreciate it if the Minister dealt with that point. It may well be that a unitary council is part of a community council.

Malcolm Wicks: No; not yet.
	New clause 3 would give the Secretary of State a duty to report whether energy consumed in the UK was produced by microgeneration, nuclear energy or fossil fuels. The Department of Trade and Industry already publishes monthly, quarterly and annual data on energy produced by nuclear energy and fossil fuels, and microgeneration, which is currently minimal, does not form part of the survey. When the number of microgeneration installations has risen to a level that allows the collection of reliable data we will include microgeneration in our reports, so the new clause is superfluous. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has studied the existing published data and found it to be inadequate, or whether he has not accessed the relevant shelves in the Library.

Eric Forth: I agree with my hon. Friend. That raises the issue of why this matter was not aired in Committee. However, we have to be frank that one of the problems with Committee proceedings on private Members' Bills in particular is that the Committee members tend, not unreasonably, to be supporters of the Bill and there is a scramble between the Government, if they rather like the Bill, the promoter of the Bill, if he was not given the idea by the Government in the first place, and a compliant Opposition, which is trend at the moment. Everyone is tumbling over each other to put more and more into the Bill. This measure is a classic case of what should have been done, if at all, in Committee, where it could have been properly scrutinised, instead of bobbing up at the last minute with very little notice to make this fundamental alteration in the law. For all these reasons, unless a much better effort is made to explain and justify this measure, I will not support it.

Eric Forth: My point of reference for debates on these matters is the excellent second report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, HL paper 12, which covers many of the subjects that we are discussing today extremely well, and I recommend it to the House and to people outside. On page 11, their Lordships consider the greenhouse gases listed in clause 2, and say:
	"The main greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide . . . which is emitted by the use of fossil fuels and by the burning of forests; methane . . . which comes from decaying degradable matter, e.g. in landfill sites, and from livestock".
	They consider nitrous oxides—the subject of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—which, they say, come
	"from fertilisers, industrial processes, and fossil fuel burning."
	The report goes on to refer to a group of other gases such as perfluoromethane, perfluoroethane which is used in aluminium production, and sulphur hexafluoride from dielectric fluids. The list is in line with the one that we are discussing.
	The report helpfully provides a list showing how the gases force temperature rises and how they vary substantially. That is expressed in terms of their global warming potential. Carbon dioxide is set at 1, methane is 23 and nitrous oxide is 296. Hydrofluorocarbons vary from 12 to 12,000, perfluorocarbons from 5,000 to 12,000, and sulphur hexafluoride up to 22,200. That bears out the point that my hon. Friend made so eloquently. Sadly, a list such as the one in the Bill, which the Minister proposes to move to a different part of the Bill, gives no indication of the relative effects of the gases.
	My hon. Friend brought out extremely well in his submission and in his amendment the fact that we must be careful not to fall into the trap of treating all gases in the same way. Their lordships' report goes to some pains to identify the fact that some gases are far more important and potentially damaging than others. It is therefore important that we always make a distinction not only as to their relative effect—there are uncertainties surrounding that, which we may explore at some length on Third Reading, but not now—but as to their volumes, so that we can assess their potential effect in the atmosphere and therefore on the climate.
	In that context, I wonder whether the requirement in clause 2 for an annual report on greenhouse gas emissions, which are listed, showing levels of emissions, including increases or decreases, will give us the measure of their potential effect. I say in passing, as I said earlier, that I very much doubt whether an annual report would be the appropriate vehicle for that. Annual variations in emissions may not tell us very much because of individual circumstances of various kinds. It would be much more efficacious to look over a longer time scale, with longer intervals of reporting, to get a clearer view of possible trends and to examine the policy imperatives that may arise from those.
	The impression given by the clause, and even by the annual reporting process, is that if one detects a slight variation in the level of one of the greenhouse gases, something can be done immediately to deal with that. No one would pretend that that was the case, but there is a risk that we give that impression. If, in one of the reports, methane, say, was shown to have gone up slightly or even significantly from one year to another, are we to respond to that in policy terms? I would have thought not. I imagine that we should consider a policy response only if we were able to detect and measure a secular trend one way or the other in these gases. What would our policy response be if there was a decrease? Would we congratulate ourselves, continue with the policies that we believe contributed to that, and tighten them or loosen them, or, as my hon. Friend suggested, would we have some regard as to whether they play, in a different way, a vital part in our economy—transport, in this case? All that would have to be taken into account.

Mark Lazarowicz: No one has suggested that different greenhouse gases have different impacts, although the rate of emission obviously varies from greenhouse gas to greenhouse gas. The greenhouse gases specified by the Bill are those that we are signed up internationally to monitor and seek to reduce.
	Once again, the hon. Member for Christchurch seeks to broaden the debate beyond what the Bill is intended to do. Indeed, he has challenged the basis on which we have signed up to the Kyoto protocol. He may agree with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that we should not be signed up to the Kyoto protocol but we are and we have commitments. It is therefore only fair to ensure that we have mechanisms in the UK to monitor our performance on them.

Sandra Gidley: I welcome an early opportunity to highlight problems with the new contract for delivering oxygen to people's homes, which was the subject of heated debated in Health questions. It is nice to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), but I regret that he does not have direct knowledge of the subject or responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the new service which the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) described, perhaps inadvertently, as a shambles. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary is well briefed.
	It is worth setting out the background to the problem. For many years, community pharmacists supplied oxygen cylinders, and that service was supplemented by other companies supplying oxygen concentrators. In a response to a parliamentary question that I tabled, the Minister of State said:
	"For many years, patient organisations have sought improvements in the domiciliary oxygen service, which has seen little change over the past 50 years."—[Official Report, 27 February 2006; Vol. 443, c. 435W.]
	That is not exactly inaccurate, but the bulk of those concerns centred on the old-fashioned nature of the equipment, rather than on the suppliers.
	The Department asked the Royal College of Physicians to lead a multi-disciplinary working group in a review of the clinical assessment and prescribing of oxygen in the home. That group reported in 1999. I have been unable to clarify the composition of the group, so I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary would do so, as it has been suggested that there was not a proper consultation, which prevented full consideration of the benefits of retaining a supply from pharmacies. In 2003, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who then had ministerial responsibility for pharmacies, stated in a written answer:
	"Although the working party's terms of reference precluded making specific recommendations about alterations in service provision, a number of the guidelines had implications for the content of the existing domiciliary oxygen service and for the way in which the service is delivered."—[Official Report, 12 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 1075W.]
	He then mentioned that as a result of the exercise, a review of the domiciliary oxygen service had taken place and he would announce the results. It may have been at this stage that the Department of Health issued a questionnaire. A joint response by the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee and the National Pharmaceutical Association made a strong case for cylinder oxygen to continue to be supplied by community pharmacies and proposed a beefed-up monitoring role.
	The then Minister announced that the new model would transfer responsibility for ordering oxygen for long-term oxygen therapy from GPs to specialist consultants in hospital. The idea was that this was a specialist service and that many patients would benefit from having oxygen available in different forms. GPs could continue to prescribe oxygen for patients who required relatively small amounts. So far, so good. However, he went on to say that specialist contractors would provide the service, and that a specification for the provision of the service would be drawn up. He anticipated that the new service would be fully operational early in 2005.
	Not everybody was happy. The pharmaceutical services negotiating committee lodged an official protest with the Department of Health that the domiciliary oxygen service was to be swept aside and replaced by a secondary-based system. The main strands of the complaint were that it had been launched without proper consultation and put at risk the provision of oxygen therapy to patients. Those proved to be sound words.
	However, when the details of the invitation to tender were announced, it was clear that pharmacy was out of the picture. Despite ministerial protestations to the contrary, because the Government required a one-supplier-fits-all approach, and pharmacy expertise did not extend to fitting the concentrators, pharmacy was effectively excluded.
	Initially, the service was supposed to start on 1 October 2005. That deadline was not achieved because of legal action by one of the potential suppliers. Throughout this period, pharmacy contractors remained keen to help, and despite the fact that pharmacies had already begun to run down the stocks and infrastructure, such as the vans and storage equipment, they all did what they could to keep the service going. The PSNC tells me that efforts were made to find ways of transferring pharmacies' valuable knowledge about patients to the new suppliers, but the Department of Health and the primary care trusts believed that they did not need that help.
	As February 2006 approached, some patients were transferred to a concentrator service but, as the Minister acknowledged in health questions on Tuesday, that was only about half the patients who were receiving oxygen. What she did not acknowledge was that on 1 February there were effectively 30,000 patients without an oxygen service. Those had been relying on the local pharmacy network to supply their oxygen.
	Prior to 1 February it was clearly understood by pharmacy contractors that they would not be able to supply oxygen after 1 February other than on a pre-dated prescription, so I was somewhat surprised to read in The Times a letter from the Minister with responsibility for public health stating:
	"The service was always planned to be phased over a six month transition period and not suddenly switched".
	Such assertions have been repeated by the Minister with responsibility for pharmacy, and they are misleading. That was not the impression given by the NHS in the run-up to the 1 February deadline. If the Minister disbelieves me, I refer him to the primary care contracting NHS website.
	In 2005 some frequently asked questions were produced. One was how suppliers would receive their orders. Under the old system, GPs wrote a prescription, called an FP 10, and pharmacists supplied against that. The answer is interesting. It clearly states that doctors would have to use the home oxygen order form—HOOF—and submit it directly to the oxygen service provider. It continues categorically:
	"The FP 10 will no longer be used for prescribing oxygen, as it is not a prescribable medicine".
	As there was no clear cut-off point, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain what the Minister meant when she stated in her letter that the service was to be "phased in", and what phasing was planned for after 1 February. Any phasing should have taken place before that date, when a complete switch-over was planned.
	What happened? Within a few days of 1 February, I received complaints from a local hospital doctor that he was unable to discharge patients into the community because of difficulties in obtaining oxygen. He also claimed that many doctors had raised concerns about the transfer to the new system. In addition, I received calls from pharmacists highlighting the long delays experienced by patients receiving oxygen from the new suppliers. Many GPs did not transfer patients as anticipated, and it would be helpful if the Minister were to explain how that process was monitored during the lead-up to 1 February.
	Much of the information supplied by GPs was inaccurate or incomplete, which compounded the demand on the inadequate resources of the new suppliers. Air Products, which is one of the new suppliers, claim that 80 per cent. of the HOOF forms that it received had been filled in incorrectly. It would be useful to know what guidance was issued to GPs on the changes and the extra information required on the new forms.
	The four main suppliers had insufficient telephone line capacity, and it is interesting that they passed the buck to GPs and patients and blamed them for contacting helplines with general queries about future supply orders. In many parts of the country, the February transfer can only be described as "chaotic". One supplier, Allied Respiratory, was moved to issue a press release stating:
	"DoH and NHS had discussed the transitional arrangements, and it had always been anticipated that a gradual change would take place, phasing the transfer of existing cylinder patients from their current suppliers"—
	namely pharmacies—"to the new suppliers", but that did not happen. Instead supply from the existing network ceased abruptly, leaving patients with no choice other than to pursue the new suppliers for their oxygen from 1 Feb 2006. As I have said, that situation involved some 30,000 people.
	It seems clear that the much quoted "phased transfer" was supposed to occur before 1 February and that the scheme was badly managed by the NHS. The original intention was to pass regulations to prevent doctors from using prescription forms after 1 February, which would effectively have curtailed supply from community pharmacies. We have to be hugely thankful for yet another piece of Department of Health mismanagement, which meant that those regulations were never actually passed. That effectively threw the Government a lifeline, because GPs continued to prescribe as they always have done and pharmacists continued to supply and bail out the failing service. Despite the fact that many pharmacies had run down their stocks of oxygen, they rose to the occasion, and many were happy to do so, because they did not want to let down the many patients with whom they had formed close relationships.
	That action serves to underscore the importance, resilience and flexibility of the pharmacy network and its commitment to patient care, but the Government clearly fail to appreciate that point. A letter to me from Lord Warner dated 27 April 2005 stated:
	"As you will appreciate more is required of the service providers under the new service contract than the delivery and collection of oxygen cylinders".
	That statement displays a complete lack of understanding of the role of pharmacists, who, when they delivered oxygen, were on hand to advise on and monitor use. Furthermore, they would often deliver medicines and advise on their usage at the same visit. In fact, that arrangement provided a fully integrated medicines management approach delivered into the heart of the community and reaching some of those in society with the poorest health, which is just the sort of thing that the Government claim they want to see much more of in their latest White Paper.
	What of the future? Local arrangements are being implemented to sort out the problem in the short term. I pay tribute to the local practitioner committee in Hampshire and Isle of the Wight, which has been proactive and negotiated arrangements with the primary care trust to ensure that patients receive supplies and that pharmacists are not left out of pocket for helping out.
	We must ask ourselves whether it is right to keep the service in the hands of three large suppliers—the number has decreased from four to three because of a takeover—which are likely to struggle with the peaks and troughs of demand. In the past, if a local pharmacist could not supply oxygen, there was usually one not very far away who could step into the breach very quickly. In an emergency, most pharmacists were keen to supply within an hour. The current target is four hours, which is too long for some people to wait for oxygen, and it has been missed in the first month of the introduction of the new contract. There have been reports of people having to wait until the next day for what has been deemed an emergency supply of oxygen. That never happened with pharmacies, because of their individual professional responsibility and commitment to patient care.
	On Tuesday, I was disappointed when the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree seemed to suggest that because only half of the pharmacy network supplied oxygen, the system was not good enough. In reality, in any local neighbourhood, everybody knew where the oxygen was and worked together to ensure that the patients received a decent supply. Again, there has been a lack of understanding about the system's flexibility and the way in which it worked on the ground.
	The Government say much about patient choice and it is a shame that that commitment did not extend to oxygen supply. I therefore read with some interest in Chemist and Druggist about their new campaign for choice in oxygen, which pharmacy trade bodies, multiple wholesalers and individual contractors back. I do not believe that they have got around to asking patients yet, but my feedback and postbag lead me to believe that they would also support it. The National Pharmaceutical Association suggested that the service could be reintroduced as a beefed-up, enhanced service. I hope that the Government will consider that proposal.
	When the Under-Secretary responds, I hope that he will be open and candid about the faults and problems that have arisen. Warm words about those who have bailed out the system are not enough. Patients and their relatives have experienced stress, and deaths have been attributed to the failure of the service during the handover. Only an apology will be sufficient.